229.02 - 234.51
169.21 - 260.10
55.82M / 54.92M (Avg.)
32.24 | 7.26
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
-24.10%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-22.94%
Negative gross profit growth while VUZI is at 67.45%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-30.89%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-30.89%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-30.31%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-30.14%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-29.82%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.67%
Share reduction while VUZI is at 1.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.72%
Reduced diluted shares while VUZI is at 1.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-2.35%
Dividend reduction while VUZI stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-43.13%
Negative OCF growth while VUZI is at 36.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-44.82%
Negative FCF growth while VUZI is at 34.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
216.10%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VUZI is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
89.84%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VUZI is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
10.17%
Positive 3Y CAGR while VUZI is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
166.46%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VUZI's 2.76%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
146.85%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VUZI's 59.31%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
2.89%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VUZI's 26.57%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
267.58%
Positive 10Y CAGR while VUZI is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
148.11%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VUZI is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
8.78%
Positive short-term CAGR while VUZI is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-1.85%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VUZI stands at 165.31%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-14.94%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
16.63%
Positive short-term equity growth while VUZI is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
121.66%
Dividend/share CAGR of 121.66% while VUZI is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
30.77%
Dividend/share CAGR of 30.77% while VUZI is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
17.04%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 17.04% while VUZI is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-17.87%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-4.29%
Inventory is declining while VUZI stands at 0.90%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-4.56%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
0.80%
Positive BV/share change while VUZI is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-3.19%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
2.69%
We increase R&D while VUZI cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-4.69%
We cut SG&A while VUZI invests at 6.51%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
